swansont

Time most certainly be measured.

! Moderator Note Not sure what part of “don’t re-introduce this topic” you didn’t understand, but yes, I meant it

Most people are just fine with such cases. Is there some rash of incidents of CD/DVD damage being reported?

I can talk of things in momentum space, which is not spatial. Describing things of x,y,z is one option, but not the only one.

You said the situation wasn’t a false dichotomy, which implies there isn’t a third option. So basically you did. Claiming that as a "false dichotomy" for the purpose of allowing generally advantaged xy chromosome individuals to compete in the category of those with xx chromosomes counts as well Nobody has established that the chromosomes of these people (is anyone doing such tests?) or that chromosomes are actually the sole determinant of gender. Nor that the ones competing are “generally advantaged” because this. The lack of examples of all the medals/money being won suggests this is not true. Furthermore, this is not an exclusive matter of science. There are moral/ethical considerations, and legal ones in play. It basically demands we use two categories for gender when that’s not the case. And that gender is all in the plumbing and not in the brain and other aspects of the body (and even then ignores that it’s not so simple as only 2 options for what body parts you have) To me the blinders seem similar to the mistaken notion that you choose your sexual orientation. That one is choosing to be a different gender, like one is choosing to be attracted to people of the same sex. Out of convenience, perhaps. Since it applies to a large majority of people It’s a social distinction, but probably much less of a scientific one.

Fock space is not a physical region. The “space” is a mathematical one. There was a recent discussion of this

This whole argument is based on there being a disadvantage to competing in the men’s category. And framing it as “men who claim to be female” is part of the issue. It was a claim of logic, not science. Is there some excluded third option? So in the US you exclude about 200,000 people. Yeah, sure, that’s the same as zero </s>

But it’s not. Men and women were divisions made long before chromosomes were known, and we know there are more than these two pairings. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The pseudo-science being…what?

Yes, it is unscientific, and your earlier example shows you can’t use chromosomes to get you to 2 categories.

I don’t know. I wasn’t responding to CY Thanks for recognizing this wouldn’t be equitable The expansion of women’s sports in the US was driven by the realization that there was rampant discrimination. To exclude anyone who isn’t XY or XX would be further discrimination. “tradition” is chock full of discrimination, so perhaps it’s best not to lean on that. What about disadvantages to trans women? This whole thing boils down to either accepting or rejecting that trans women are women. Born or typically live with it, or not, referring to something that gives an objective advantage. You aren’t born with bionic limbs, per the example.

So you would not let these other people compete? That hardly seems fair. These are the only two options currently before us. Men’s sports and women’s sports. Once you acknowledge that this is an artificial dichotomy, the wheels come off many of the arguments.

And what of people who don’t fall into these two categories?

Yes. It’s used for photon-atom systems That’s the classical description. That’s also classical. It gives incorrect results

If they are in DVD cases they should be fine; the cases protect them from physical damage from minor disturbances like this.

I don’t see artificial enhancements currently being as hard to distinguish as the topic of the thread.

You can’t tell that time passes? That’s too bad, but this isn’t generally the case for people.

No, “we” don’t. Dressed state formulation, for example, uses energy eigenstates. No localization. Position isn’t an eigenstate.

the “dressed state” approach Particle wave function has ground and excited states, with numbers of particles in each, and photon states have an occupation number. The photons and atoms can interact. https://www.quora.com/What-are-dressed-states-in-Quantum-Optics

An EM wave isn’t a component of a particle In my part of physics you can use the “dressed state” approach Particle wave function has ground and excited states, with numbers of particles in each, and photon states have an occupation number. The photons and atoms can interact. https://www.quora.com/What-are-dressed-states-in-Quantum-Optics

I have no idea what you mean by this

A perfectly cromulent view.

Not gravity

Is that what it means? Or is it that time can’t be resolved at that scale? A bullet is significantly larger than the previously described scale, so why is there an issue? We can’t “see” the kinetic energy or momentum, either. Time isn’t spatial, so why would we see it?

As far as I recall, there’s no particular name. In many cases, the region is all space.